Definitely a recording that met with much unjust criticism, at least in my opinion. Certainly the vituperative nature of the criticism was unwarranted. If you don't like something, let your opinion be known. Fine. But so many folks were out there trying to rack up cool-points raking Cecil, & especially Dixon, over the coals that they just made themselves look silly in the process. Pre-conceived notions fall hard. Thanks for the review.

What a lot of people don't understand is the Cecil is really a fan of Dixon's work.
much like the duo with Derek Bailey, Cecil wants to work with Bill's concept because like anyone with ears he hears that it is awesome.
Cecil was at the "Berlin Abozzi" concert and was really blown away by it.
I like to listen to this cd and hear Cecil working on replacing the two double basses. He does a great job.

"Bill's concept because like anyone with ears he hears that it is awesome"
OK Damon, as a something of a sceptic when it comes to Dixon's work, I'd like you to explain in plain English what this famous "concept" is, and why you think it's awesome. I can't help feeling I'm missing out on something here, because apart from a few albums - Intents & Purposes, Vade Mecum, and a couple of other Soul Notes, I've never been really blown away. I'd take Leo Smith's Kabell Years box over Dixon's Odyssey any day. He's often mentioned in the same breath as Coleman, Taylor and Shepp (one wonders if he would be if the Autumn Revolution hadn't happened), but from where I'm sitting such a glowing reputation hasn't been borne out on disc. But I guess I'm just missing the point, so why don't you tell us what the point is? FWIW, I didn't like this Victo CD one little bit.

"Intents & Purposes, Vade Mecum, and a couple of other Soul Notes"
-Well that is most of his work right there.
He expanded the range of the trumpet top and bottom for one, he also created a textural language more sophistcated than any other American improvisor, it's no wonder he ended up working with Kowald, Guy, Evan Parker and Oxely.
When "Vade Mecum II" came out Jerome Bryerton and I were roomates and we just sat around all day and listened to it. Durring that period I was playing in a trio with Wadada Leo Smith, he called about a gig we had planned and asked what I was doing, so I told him. He said Dixon was "the best".

"but from where I'm sitting such a glowing reputation hasn't been borne out on disc. But I guess I'm just missing the point, so why don't you tell us what the point is?"

Here it is in all its glory, the dripping sarcasm, the holier than thou (& highly practiced) stance, everything. You don't like Dixon or the disc, great. But you stand poised to attack at any verbiage, phrase, that flies in the face of this opinion, such as the "concept." Hell, I dunno what the concept is, but I love his playing. You don't, & again that's fine. Just retract the claws & wrap your head around the fact that maybe, just maybe, all the answers out there aren't yours, & would everyone please just get over the TradeMark thing.

Dripping sarcasm? Scepticism, maybe. Try talking to anyone who's played with Ornette and ask them to explain what "harmolodics" is - you'll get a nice smile for an answer. I agree with you entirely when you say "Hell I dunno what the concept is, but I love his playing." Exactly. Why do you need to have a concept? (I'm still waiting for Damon - or you - to explain what this precious "concept" is btw) I didn't say I didn't like Dixon either - try reading what I write before (over)reacting - I said that those albums "blew me away" (is that clear enough? or does that still sound like dripping sarcasm to you?) Retract YOUR claws, mate. I'm the first to thrill to the albums I mentioned above but I can tell you the concert of Mr Dixon I saw here in Paris in January was seriously disappointing. So I await enlightenment. And you're not enlightening me.

Nor will I. Nothing worse than proselytizing.
It's simple: you like it or you don't. Say your piece & walk away. Who really needs a dig? This is exactly what I meant by folks looking silly in the process.

Ah, the coy cool schtick. Time was, I was you.

I agree about Harmolodics. I could care less what an artist says about his work. The intentional fallacy. Much prefer Beckett's approach: I wrote it already, you figure it out.

But that's that. Fire away, I'm done

Dixon gummed up the works at the Royal Festival Hall gig, three years back, with the Braxton Quintet and The Oxley/Taylor/Dixon trio. Dixon was dull dull dull, no imagination, no musicianship, nothing. I love the Vade Mecums and November 1981 (and others), BTW, so his performance was a huge disappointment. Maybe just a bad night for him (and us, the audience, too, alas).

"I can tell you the concert of Mr Dixon I saw here in Paris in January was seriously disappointing."

from all reports, he can't play much anymore, which happens to all horn players at one point or another, so I wouldn't hold that against him.

he's in my pantheon just for the two Vade Mecum records, which from my perspective are two of the very rare successful works in the tradition of the brilliant Giuffre/Bley/Swallow trio of the early sixties. I haven't heard the above record, and I've passed on seeing his recent appearances here. I saw the Giuffre trio in the nineties and wished I hadn't, they didn't have it any more (I'm not a fan of the reunion records either, but this was a notch below those, being generous). he's playing here on Thursday in the Vision Fest in duo with George Lewis, which I'd go see if it wasn't a $25 admission (too much for one set I'm mildly interested in).

and Dan, I agree that Odyssey isn't very strong, I think it's his small group work that's his strong point, not his solo work.

The disc under discussion here is one of the weakest in Dixon's catalogue, and I suspect that neither Taylor nor Oxley would consider it a jewel in either of theirs. You're not missing much, Jon.

5 random thoughts on Bill Dixon:

1. His tone is immediately recognizeable.

2. His music is immediately recognizeable.

3. His music has eluded writers since the beginning (a good sign), yet he his held in the highest *musical* esteem by his peers.

4. Bill Dixon, (age 82) has been fanatically devoted to Black Music/Jazz/Improvisation since the 1940's. He has been in the *physical presence* of (and in many cases knew personally) the living history of Black Music/Jazz/Improvisation from the inception to the present: from Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington (and Orchestra), John Coltrane, Miles Davis, to Albert Ayler, George Russel, Cecil Taylor, Jimmy Lyons, Marco Eneidi, William Parker, Ornette Coleman, Alan Silva, Franz Hautzinger, Andrew Hill, etcetera. If nothing else, there certainly is a great deal informing Dixon's aesthetic--more than most anyway.

5. One need not necessarily "like" the final product to recognize that it comes out of dedication, tenacity, technical verve and unique vision.

"The disc under discussion here is one of the weakest in Dixon's catalogue, and I suspect that neither Taylor nor Oxley would consider it a jewel in either of theirs. You're not missing much, Jon."
- Cecil was really excited about this group and this concert when
I saw him in Berlin at the Total Music Meeting that year.
He was going on about how great it was to play with Bill and how much he loved Bill's trumpet playing.
I have it on now, it sounds to me like three total masters interacting at a very subtle and high level.
It does not sound like Dixon replacing parker in the Feel Trio.
Anyway sjz about covers it above.

Sorry, sjz, but why is it "a good sign" that Dixon's music "has eluded writers since the beginning"? What difference does it make? Trying to put into words what it feels like to listen to a piece of music is extremely difficult, though the technical stuff is slightly easier to get one's head around. But unfathomability adds no particular value, no matter how much there is of it.

Completely unrelated. But has anyone heard Tony Bevan's Bruise Quintet's Bruised, or Bruise with Derek Bailey? To my ears, this is very interesting music. A lot of the percussion sections are right out of the Sun Ra 1962-1965 playbook, minus the reverb, but oftentimes with the touch of electronics, & steel drum of all things. & Bevan's Bass Sax is really what I need to hear right now. He generally stays inside the horn, but does go out of its register every so often. He seems to really understand that fact that if he's playing a bass sax he might as well keep it seriously low. Anyway, sorry for the aside.

A "good sign" in that historically much of the music I cherish eluded critics and writers of the time of its creation. (And really, how many more "great" records that "all the critics rave about" do we need?)

Take Schoenberg. They sure said some not nice things about Schoenberg when he hit the scene. While there's nothing wrong with not caring for Schoenberg's product, you have to hand it to him (and Dixon) for concieving of such a distinct sound and dedicating a life to developing it.

Isn't that what musicians are supposed to do?

Re: the sideline: yes, Bruise is wonderful. The new one isn't as nicely recorded as the Gateway disc but I found it an absorbing & rather moving experience. Further thoughts on it in next month's PT.

I'll skip on the main subject-matter: I hated the Victo disc, gave my copy to Will Montgomery long ago so can't go back & see if it seems any less disappointing.

I happened to have been at this particular Victo gig the night this CD was recorded. While too many people pissed [unfairly in my mind] on Dixon and Taylor about their performance that night, going back in time, I find the music quiet, introspective and most refreshing. Why? Simple - they broke out of their usual modes. Taylor was not his usual all fire and brimstone self, while Dixon [though instantly recognizable] sounded as if he were truly himself. True enough, Oxley didn't change one bit about his playing.

I feel - as with anything in life - people will perform based on what sort of mood they happen to be in. Maybe, the three men found it hard to come to some sort of an agreement before they played live that night? Maybe one or all three were plain tired? Maybe, just maybe this concert was really a power struggle between the three of them?

I think sometimes the audience's expectations are simply too damn high and just can't be met. Going on stage with an hour delay and playing for barely 50 minutes will surely be a huge disappointment to many fans of either of these men's work [especially if you drove 8 hours to be solely at this one gig]. Looking back, I see the disc simply for what it is - a document of three great minds.
To all neigh-sayers, I simply say this: stop pissing and start listening.

bill dixon's concept just has to do with how he plays and the sorts of ensembles and interplay he surrounds himself with. it's not that cryptic. i like it. he's good. i don't listen to him too often, but i enjoy it when i do. in particular, i like "intents and purposes" which is a brilliant, woody sounding record that fuses chamber group like timbres with sabre-rattling percussion and hot, gasping horn solo statements. great, great fucking record. bought it when i was 16 years old and believe that it still warrants repeated, close inspection.

ww

Tom: To all neigh-sayers, I simply say this: stop pissing and start listening.

Brian: You're assuming, Tom, that because some of us don't much like this disc it's because we haven't given it a good listen, or, for that matter, a fair shake. You're also assuming that your assessment of the music's worth is the correct one. Neither of these assumptions is necessarily correct, though both are arrogant.

"They sure said some not nice things about Schoenberg when he hit the scene. While there's nothing wrong with not caring for Schoenberg's product, you have to hand it to him (and Dixon) for concieving of such a distinct sound and dedicating a life to developing it."
I'm not sure that Schoenberg was that interested in developing a sound as much as a compositional method, but never mind - the difference is he did leave us with a substantial body of work, both musical and theoretical. The comparison with Dixon just doesn't stand up. Comparing Schoenberg to Coltrane or Ornette maybe.
Further points:
"His tone is immediately recognizeable."
You could say that of literally hundreds of musicians, from Arthur Doyle to David Sanborn, neither of whom, to the best of my knowledge, have ever vaunted a "concept" (playing music seems to be enough). Big deal. Kylie Minogue and Sheena Easton are immediately recognisable too.
"His music is immediately recognizeable."
Idem - so what?
"His music has eluded writers since the beginning (a good sign), yet he his held in the highest *musical* esteem by his peers."
I'm not sure that the bit about writers is necessarily true - there are several critics out there who are just as enthusiastic about BD's work as you (their articles are all listed on Dixon's website). There are also quite a few musicians who are just as scathing about it too, off the record.

Hi there!
I think it is fascinating, in and of itself, when a record causes this much reaction when so many others posted here don't! I ascribe no particular meaning to this, just an observation.
Also, I think Odyssey is stunning! For me, it was one of those formative experiences, like Duos for Doris or Ligeti's Requiem (tears in my eyes as I write.) I think what I like best about Odyssey is that, while I hear a progression of sorts, I don't feel the need to delineate a concept, because the range of sound throughout the set is just so broad. I think Dixon brings such drama, such conviction, to his work that it's palpable all the way through. Maybe there is a concept, or, as in Schonberg's "tonal problem" or "grundgestalt" theory, maybe there are several ways of articulating what Dixon's done, and I'm going to try my best to do just that.
By the way, I heard an audience recording of the London concert from nov. 2004. I was less than impressed by the trio work than I was with the Victo concert disc, but I hear Dixon's solo as a masterful study in rhythm, overtone and, most impressive, the colors that can be achieved with a single repeated note

At Least part of Dill Dixon's concept is the use of orchestral thinking to create space and density, meaning the same musician can change timbre and register in a simlar way to orchestral writing/thinking.
I think the way time, Ideas, space and timbre are managed in Dixon's music is clearly different than most, I feel this is best represented in the Vade Mecums, the two duo's with Oxley and Berlin Abozzi.
His music also a has a distinct mood or whatever you want to call it.

As far as harmolodics early on it meant that each note should thought of as all of it's possible scale relationships not just to the tonic at hand, and that you could make a choice to modulate based on any of those relationships.
It also meant that the Harmony was dictated by the melody in the improvisation not vice versa. Haden was a master of this (and not much else unfortunately).
It does not sound like much now but it was radical back then.
Harmolodics seemed to get more and more vauge from the Izenzon/Moffet (my favorite period by far) period until Prime Time and the present.

I remember my Music Theory Professor Robert Wason at Eastman poring over the Harmolodic Guitar Clefs in James Blood Ulmer's Captain Black, eventually coming to the conclusion he didn't understand them at all! Yeah, well, harmolodics isn't a music theory system as much as an *attitude*..
Yes Marc, tears in my eyes to when I think of Ligeti Requiem. Sorry to hear he'd died - but he'd been unwell for a while, from what I gather.

Right, he'd been ill, and I'm glad he's not suffering now, but the world's just that much less fortunate to have lost him.
Now, two things: I actually think the Schonberg comparison is quite appropriate. First, and partially, for the reasons I began to state above. Relatedly, beyond intents and purposes, no one here has mentioned Dixon's other orchestral works, composed throughout his career. I've heard the one from Considerations--actually two "orchestral" pieces, as "Sequences", while a small group piece, is certainly orchestral in sonic scope. None of the ensemble pieces I've heard fits into a bag, not even as much as, say, the Mantler JCOA material does. They embrace loose tonality, or modality, while existing outside of it, as much of the best Schonberg does despite what he says! Also, I think Dixon is very good at articulating, verbally, his musical goals and methods and the ideas behind them. Wouldn't you say, Dan, that his Genesis of the Solo (partially summarized on Odyssey disc 6) and Schonberg's Musical Idea are similar in conception? Wouldn't you say that each "composer"s idea of a model is fluidly tangible without being simplistically definable, insulting to the intelligence of a listener/annalist?
Second, this idea of chops decaying! My favorite Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau recording comes from 1985--the Winterreise with Alfred Brendel. Sure his voice had declined when compared to all those prettily inoffensive 1960s things (OK, overstating a bit!) but what has gone in conventional technique has been replaced with intensity, astonishing emotion--you want a heart-wrenching experience? Go check that shit out! I see Dixon's work in the same way--of course he's not playing what he was! If he did, wouldn't we accuse him of some kind of stagnation? If you can't or won't play what you played, best thing is to bring something new to the table, or to refine one of your ealier innovations, and I think he's done both consistently.

And I think Damon's hit on something really important. The subtlety of timbre, orchestral in nature, that Dixon gets from gesture to gesture astounds me! I hear Rutherford doing some of that, and I'd say that if Vade Mecum extends any tradition at all, I hear Iskra with drums as opposed to the Giuffre trio.

I teach my students Harmolodics and they understand it well enough to be able to play and sound like Ornette. I also teach them Unit Structures and Tri-Axiom theory and they can play those too. Teachers who don't understand the material they teach should change jobs. Maybe you should have asked Blood to explain it instead of your theory professor, Dan.

Harmolodics is easy to understand but not easy to play. Ornette's explanation is confusing (on purpose maybe?) but with some study and practice the concept makes perfect sense, especially the harmolodic clef. It is a theory system not an attitude. I could even teach you Warburton, but you would have to practice to be able to play it and you'd have to stop being a know-it-all critic and actually try to learn.

Evaluating Dixon's place among his peers or his concept without considering the context in which he developed is a mistake. As an African-American in the 60's doing anything that took music out of the role of entertainment was revolutionary (as we all know), Dixon was instrumental it shedding light on that basic idea and on the artists who were doing that. Comparing his trumpet playing with that of his contemporary Don Cherry, sheds light on the clarity of his concept as an improviser. That part has always been intentional and Dixon has pointed that out for decades.

I find his concept to be clear and easy to identify but until recently not as transferable as Harmolodics or Unit Structures. His concept does not involve any notion of melodic structure, it is not about articulation in relation to a pulse, it does not concern itself with tonal centers. It does use sound and dynamics in a way that is proportional. It is about different but parallel velosities as opposed to meter or phrase lengths.

Dixon's music might not be as exciting as or as fun to play as Ornette's or Cecil's but is unique in comparison to their's or any other player/conceptualist of that period.

Dixon has influenced many brass players including Leo Smith, Greg Kelly, Roy Campbell, Nate Wooley, Joe McPhee, Taylor Ho Bynum. The younger batch has done a lot to transfer Dixon's ideas into the vocabulary of current improvising. Damon's explanation shows that it's pretty well understood by up and coming musicians.

Regarding your comments on Dixon's Paris concert Dan: You already published a review of that event in WIRE. Here you are again having another go at making your point even though you published your opinion months ago. I was there too, remember? So were about 1000 other people. I would bet that very many of them turned up to see Dixon. That in itself suggests that he's more important than you think. The response to his performance was strong, but not as strong as the 10 minute standing ovation given to Kidd Jordan and Fred Anderson. You didn't mention that in your report in WIRE. FWIW, You just knocked the whole concert.

Brian - you're absolutely right. Either those that piss on this disc or those that make excuses for its weight [that with time will see the light of day - I can just see people raving about this a few days down the road] are arrogant!

Though that doesn't mean I won't stop enjoying it, any more than "Berlin Abbozzi" or "Vade Mecums"....

In the realm of aesthetics and art, while there is certainly room for objectivity, the 1000 pound sleeping iguana is that you really can't escape subjectivity, & that all these reasoned judgements are simply opinions, nothing more. From the last great system builders Kant & Hegel on back to Plato, every one of their elaborate edifices built for the completely objective understanding of aesthetics has fallen on its face & can be broken down to finally saying that there is a reason why one likes or dislikes something, & that reason is what one has experienced in life. We simply cannot escape ourselves.

Which is not to say that everything is equal. It is simply impossible to prove that one thing is necessarily "better" than the other, especially when dealing with similalry aligned art objects. It may be possible to prove that Serge Chaloff is better than Foghat, but then again, it may not be.

Anyway, it's as ineffectual to blame "poor listening" for someone's not liking this disc as it is to say this disc sucks. Humanity, it's the futile persuasion.

Ah, le p'tit c*n de service est de retour! Welcome to the Pleasuredome again, Joe - "I had a premonition you were going to show up" (Groucho to the manicurist in 'Night At The Opera'). In all sincerity I'd be delighted to take lessons from you AND practice, but I really get the impression you'd rather smash my teeth out than talk to me (you change from the "Dan" to the "Warburton" even faster than you play guitar). I notice you have a go a me for commenting on the Paris concert (was wondering how long it'd take for you to bounce back into print on that subject) but don't seem to want to take Brian Marley to task for his comments on the RFH concert.. I don't see anything wrong with mentioning it here, either: the discussion is about Bill Dixon, is it not? (Don't suppose that everyone reading Bagatellen is a Wire subscriber either.) For those who haven't read it and might not want to take your word for it (I did NOT knock the whole concert) here's what I wrote about the Dixon set, verbatim:
"Vision Festivals are well known for running late, and this evening followed suit. Bill Dixon's set, in which the 80-year-old trumpeter was joined by Warren Smith on pedal timpani and vibraphone and Joe Giardullo on tenor and soprano sax, certainly tried the patience. Playing either through a digital delay unit (à la Miles on "Bitches Brew") or a seven-second reverb (Jac Berrocal eat your heart out), Dixon, whose principal claim to fame is as a prime mover behind the so-called October Revolution that helped kickstart free jazz in New York in 1964, had plenty of opportunity to reveal why he's the granddaddy of extended techniques trumpet. But his intimate velvety puffs – imagine a cross between Jon Hassell and Franz Hautzinger – were spoiled by the overhead projection of his own artworks (shades of Miles again, and both are better off sticking to the horn). Had the slides dissolved into each other to match the music's amorphous shapes it might have worked, but instead they imposed a slow but distracting rhythm on the proceedings. More saddening was the fact that Dixon's sidemen were given no opportunity to reveal their considerable talents. Smith is one of the hottest drummers on the scene today – witness his work with James Finn – but his cursory flicks at the vibes were irritating. And Giardullo, who last year signed two spectacular solo soprano albums on Drimala and Not Two, was restricted to a vocabulary of lowercase flutters that dozens of technically less impressive saxophonists have mastered just as well."
I stand by every word of that just as much as you stand by every note you play.
Meanwhile, to address the comments of others on this thread:
"Wouldn't you say that his Genesis of the Solo (partially summarized on Odyssey disc 6) and Schonberg's Musical Idea are similar in conception?"
I'm trying to find a connection but failing - could you expand on this, Marc?
"Wouldn't you say that each 'composer's idea of a model is fluidly tangible without being simplistically definable, insulting to the intelligence of a listener/annalist?"
Yes I think that's quite good. Let me remind you again that I'm not ANTI Bill Dixon, I'm not dripping with sarcasm and I'm certainly not a know-it-all, because I don't (though if the way I write about discs and concerts gives you that impression, so be it - you're entitled to your opinion, as am I to mine). I was simply asking for someone - Damon, initially, now Joe perhaps, or one of the many people who have studied with Dixon - to go into a little detail on the music theory side of it. That's all.

In answering my second question, you in essence answered my first Dan. It isn't that I think that Dixon and Schonberg have anything theoretical (methodology in the strictest sense) in common. My Schonberg comparison was meant to show that both composers approach the act of composing itself with similar philosophies. Despite Schonberg's strict adherence to twelve-tone procedures in, say, the Orchestral Variations, there are definite nastalgically chordal implications and contrasts, the open fifths at the beginning off-setting the diminished sonorities that have pervaded, to name one example. Dixon's concern, or one of his chief concerns, has been the improv/composition axis, and it can be very difficult to tell whether any passage in his orchestral music is composed or improvised. Take the piece I cited before--Orchestra Piece from Considerations. It is informed by the "hippest" elements from "jazz" and "classical", everything from Ascention to Penderecke's St. Luke or Threnity serving as readily audible historical precedant, but it turns out that the genesis of the piece was much more practical, based in his ensemble teaching. My point is a really obvious one, but I think it's worth making. Both S and D stretch musical rhetoric, not just instrumentation or form, to breaking point, and both did this before such practices became commonplace.

Very good points, all, Marc. I've just hooked down my old copies of Considerations, blown the dust off them, and will give the spin just as soon as this new Henry Kaiser album has finished.

Hi everyone,

FWIW, i would like to back Dan's opinion. I was also at the Paris concert, and i found Bill Dixon's set very disappointing and very, very long. And considering what i saw around me, i think that a great deal of the people who came to attend to this concert had the same impression ... what i thought at first was that the French were not ready for Dixon's music, but when i read Dan's review, I realised that maybe what they played was to blame ... otherwise the two other sets were really good, and i really enjoyed joe's. In fact I went to this show more to see parker, drake and morris than dixon.

Bye everyone and glad to see that i'm not the only one to mourn Ligeti.

Vinz

"I'm not sure that Schoenberg was that interested in developing a sound as much as a compositional method,"

Though I didn't know him, I imagine that Schoenberg developed his compositional method to make his *sound.* I don't believe Schoenberg (or Dixon) created his compositional method for the purpose of developing a compositional method. His (concept of) sound was the reason for his method.

"His tone is immediately recognizeable."
You could say that of literally hundreds of musicians, from Arthur Doyle to David Sanborn, neither of whom, to the best of my knowledge, have ever vaunted a "concept"

>Could it be that "tone" *is* "the concept?" Like them or not, Arthur Doyle and David Sanborn are here, affixed in our conscious, affixed through the sound of their tone. That is a neat trick *and* and accomplishment which many (though certainly not all) aspire and few achieve.

"His music is immediately recognizeable."
Idem - so what?

>Speaking personally, if given the choice between making a body of work that sounds like countless other bodies of work and making one that is immediately recognizeable as different, I would choose the latter. Others might not make that choice, and that's fine too--there's room enough for all.

I'm not sure that the bit about writers is necessarily true - there are several critics out there who are just as enthusiastic about BD's work as you (their articles are all listed on Dixon's website). There are also quite a few musicians who are just as scathing about it too, off the record.

>First, I'm not sure that "all of the articles are listed on Dixon's website." (was that a drip of sarcasm?) Second, Dixon's music *has* eluded writers from the beginning to the present--perhaps not *all* the writers, but enough of them that some 60 years later there is still a continual thread of "skepticism" i.e. "Dixon can't play worth toffee" and "the concert was dull dull dull" and "I didn't like the slide show" and "what concept?" and so forth. It's interesting how (to me at least) how we (now) can all "know" and feel good about harmolodics and Derek Bailey and Cecil Taylor, yet the jury seems to *still* be in deliberation about Dixon.

With respect to this record, it is what it is: a meeting between three giants of the music. Like it or lump it, that's what you get. I don't know if anyone is in a position to tell *them* how *they* could have done things "better." This isn't the U.S. Open--keeping the left arm straight wouldn't have resulted in a better score.

With respect to the criticism of this record (it's dull, it's a low point etc) if Cecil Taylor thinks it's happening and Tony Oxley thinks it's happening, perhaps there just might be something to it--perhaps in their combined 150 years of musical experience they were going after things that aren't immediately accessible (or enjoyable) to everyone, but were of musical validity just the same.

As for the totality of Dixon's output, if Cecil Taylor, Tony Oxley, William Parker, George Lewis, Henry Grimes, Anthony Braxton (and so on) all think there is substance to Dixon's music, what are the chances that even the "dull" parts might stand apart from (if not above) the ordinary?

As Dixon would say "if everyone digs what you're doing, you're probably not doing very much at all"

"If Cecil Taylor thinks it's happening and Tony Oxley thinks it's happening, perhaps there just might be something to it"
This is the Joe Morris School of Music Mistory - the musician him/herself always knows best and how dare anyone else say what they think. We might as well dispense with criticism altogether and just invite the musicians to write their own liner notes, gives their own press conferences and host their own chat shows. It'd certainly save me a lot of time. Richard Wagner thought anti-semiticism was "happening", Céline thought fascism was "happening" - should we listen to them too?

"We might as well dispense with criticism altogether and just invite the musicians to write their own liner notes, gives their own press conferences and host their own chat shows."

That's not really that bad of an idea at all, as the critic is really only a reviewer expressing nothing more substantive than a subjective opinion. Tell me what's on the disc, who's on the disc, & I can decide for myself without the chicanery. Of course this will never happen, so I'm free to talk out my ass, & with nary a mumble. MMmfff.

Is it really a case of "how dare anyone else say what they think?" Really? Certainly that wasn't my anti-semetic/fascist intent, nor my musicological one.

Nor was it a swipe at "writers" or the art/craft of musical criticism. (Just the same it is worth noting that *music* can and will continue with out *music writers*, though music writing would disappear without musicians)

Instead it was an attempt to find out what it is that dissenting writers (some of whom play music, some of whom do not) *know* (rather than *feel*) about Bill Dixon, Cecil Taylor and Tony Oxley's music that Dixon, Taylor and Oxley do not.

Is there something wrong with musicians writing their own liner notes, giving their own press conferences and hosting their own chat shows? Is that really be such a bad thing? Who better to speak about what they are doing than the musicians themselves?

sjz:

"Who better to speak about what they are doing than the musicians themselves?"

Brian:

I agree. But what about those musicians who, for example, choose not to do this; those who are inarticulate; those who misconstrue their own methodology; etc. A critic can sometimes bring useful clarity and perspective to music appreciation.

Dan:

"I notice you have a go a me for commenting on the Paris concert (was wondering how long it'd take for you to bounce back into print on that subject) but don't seem to want to take Brian Marley to task for his comments on the RFH concert."

Brian:

Joe just doesn't love me as much as he loves you, Dan. It's tough love, of course. But boo hoo nonetheless.

Brian:

I agree. But what about those musicians who, for example, choose not to do this; those who are inarticulate; those who misconstrue their own methodology; etc. A critic can sometimes bring useful clarity and perspective to music appreciation.

No offense, but what century is this? An artist may think he's doing A, but maybe he's really doing C, & C is damn good. Does it diminish the art if the artist is "wrong" about his/her own work? The music hasn't changed. What the artist thinks may be important in itself, I guess, but it is really of no use in understanding or getting one's head around the music/writing/painting/whatever. The same with CRITICS. Sound & Fury. Then you need critics for the critics, a cottage industry, & the next thing you know you're ten steps removed from the thing in itself, reading Derrida, & contemplating gumption.

> reading Derrida

Horrors!

Derrida I can do without, but a good, hearty plate of gumption is always welcome.

Mmmmmm. Gumption.

Couple of points:
* Dixion "Reception Dynamics" are similar to another artist I am huge fan of: Cy Twombly, He polarizes people in a similar way. People seem to either think he is the greatsts living painter or a hack.

* Who gives a shit if he did a boring concert in Paris? I have done many more than just one boring concert just this year.

* Some things just work better on cd, in the same way a a great painting reveals it's self on repeated viewing so does a richly detailed improvisations. No matter how much you feel you get from a live performance, it is just one run through. I have gone through the cd at hand 4 times since the thread started. Get's better each time.

* Similar point to above, but a lot that EAI stuff can be a real drag to see live, like watching grass grow.
I am a huge fan of it, and collect it extensively, I just prefer it on cd at home. I still go to those concerts because the live experience can reveal things as well.

* Quoting Braxton again, could there be a bit of "Where is De Jazz?" Due to Mr. Dixon's skin color?
I am not exactly saying there is, But I can't this much uproar if we had Franz Hautzinger on this cd....

* I am Pro-Critic, while I am not in agreement with Dan and Brian on this subject, I think they both work hard to create a wider understanding of this music.

Seems like you freak out whenever it's clear that you're not the expert you think you are. Take a pill Danny and relax. I have no intention of knocking your teeth out. I do intend to comment here when I want to, without needing your approval. The hostility is coming from you. I am sorry if you can't take it when I correct mistakes you make about music and history. I don't care what you like, (For all you know I might even agree with you) you have a right to your opinion. But your opinion is often supported by your version of facts that are easily disputed.

You asked for some infomation about Dixon's "concept" and I provided them. Your knock on Harmolodics shows that you don't really know enough about it to criticize it or dismiss it as you did. After all, you're the on-line publisher/writer/editor of Paris Transatlantic magazine and the critic for the WIRE. Shouldn't you know this stuff?

BTW Your comment about Warren Smith being "one of the hottest drummers on the scene today-witness his work with James Finn" is so stupid that it's hilarious. Is that the ONLY thing you know about Warren Smith? That he played with James Finn!? The guy is a legend. He's worked with everyone from Miles, and Ellington, to Janis Joplin and Harry Partch. Also, it was called the "October Revolution". It was an event with that name. Not the so-called.. . .

As far as the Brian Marley comments, I wasn't there at that gig. I heard bad things about that concert. Marley doesn't try to change history because of his opinion. So why comment on it?

I've heard Dixon perform many times. I'm not always into what he does, and I can understand why people don't like some of his recordings, or performances. But he is a legitimate innovator and influential artist in the history of modern jazz and improvising. Just because you don't like him sometimes, Warburton, doesn't give you the right to revise that history or question its legitimacy. His concept is well defined and documented in performances, recordings, and interviews.

"but a lot of that EAI stuff can be a real drag to see live, like watching grass grow.
I am a huge fan of it, and collect it extensively, I just prefer it on cd at home. I still go to those concerts because the live experience can reveal things as well."

well, it depends on the concert and the record, obviously. the more powerful and dense end of this area, like MIMEO, Voice Crack, poire_z, the Pita/Lasse Marhaug set from No Fun 2005, very rarely totally translate to record. I'm not sure there was ever a Voice Crack record that really captured how great they were live, as an example.

and it can be true for the other end of the spectrum also, the Sugimoto Guitar Quartet was very intense in their opening set at AMPLIFY 2002, and really helped put the audience and other musicians in the perfect frame of mind for the Cosmos set which directly followed. this also didn't translate to record, and so I didn't include it in the CD portion of the box set (there's an excerpt on the DVD).

concerts and records are different experiences (obviously, but some people still have trouble with this concept). some things work better on record, some in concert, as you half-mentioned above. I've seen plenty of jawdropping eai concerts, though, maybe you haven't been at the right ones.

I like this disc a lot. It's one of my favorite Taylor discs, in fact, up there with his recent solo stuff (Willisau) and the 2 Ts box. I play it quite a bit.

I remember a couple of years ago I was invited to participate in a critics' roundtable at the New School, where we were asked to bring a few CDs and play them, whereupon our "peers" would comment, and then we'd each reveal what we'd been subjecting everyone to. I chose this item, the Yakuza album Way Of The Dead (hey, Ken Vandermark's on it - that's jazz enough for me!) and a few other things. Everyone hated this disc, ascribing it to various Euro improv types. When I told them who the personnel was, they immediately began backpedaling and attempting to find reasons to like it. Brand names are everything...and I still liked it a hell of a lot more than the tired-ass Dave Holland Big Band album one of the other jagoffs on the panel nearly put me to sleep with.

Jon - I'm with you on Voice Crack. One of my all time favourite Voice Crack gigs was their duo with Borbetomagus they played at Victo back in 94. Incredible power, intensity and volume to the max. I would've gone death had I not slipped in my trusty earplugs.
Anyone have a tape of this?

"I've seen plenty of jawdropping eai concerts, though, maybe you haven't been at the right ones."

- That is true for sure. Actually the only Erswhile project to make it out here has been Lehn/Schmickler and they were incredible live.
Also, I tend to prefer recordings to live concerts in general, not just for EAI.

I really like Odyssey. There is something about solo trumpet that I find uniquely enchanting and existentialist, especially in Dixon's work. Marc is quite right, I think: the textures that come through in his playing give his music an orchestral quality that I can't locate in any other trumpet player that I have heard.

That said, I wouldn't presume to rank Dixon in the pantheon. I think both he and Wadada Leo Smith are unique voices who should be cherished in their own right.

Thanks for your comments on Odyssey.
In which pantheon would you not presume to rank Dixon? :) Composer? Performer? Teacher? Seems to me he fits the bill on all counts. Then it becomes just a question of how highly he's ranked. What factors do you use in your decision. Innovation? Clarity of intent and purpose? Is it as simple as personal like or dislike?

I'm all too well aware I'm not "the expert I think I am", thanks Joey! And thanks for the Harry Partch info too - didn't know that. I wasn't trying to revise history or question anyone's legitimacy, or anything as grand as that. I was asked to review a concert, and that's all I did. Marc, listened to Dixon's "Orchestra Piece" again - magnificent. Does anyone have more information on Steve Horenstein? Didn't he move to Israel?

"Does anyone have more information on Steve Horenstein? Didn't he move to Israel?"

- He is living in Jeruselum. I played a nice duo with him and in one of his large ensemble pieces in Tel Aviv last year.
He is a great player, but still seems to only have that one Soulnote lp and the stuff with Dixon out.
They have a small but nice creative music scene in Israel, Assif is back in Tel Aviv and there is a great soprano player named Ariel Shibolet.

phil sez: "I chose this item, the Yakuza album Way Of The Dead (hey, Ken Vandermark's on it - that's jazz enough for me!) and a few other things. Everyone hated this disc, ascribing it to various Euro improv types. When I told them who the personnel was, they immediately began backpedaling and attempting to find reasons to like it. Brand names are everything..."

those panel guys should have followed their gut instincts: that yakuza record sure as hell needed "names" on it to get anybody to like it. it sucks! i'm not sure if you've helped your case so much with this anecdote, bro. for all the ranting and raving about it being "avant metal" it just sounds like stock nu-metal with some kenny g. sax whinnies here and there.

i find this whole thread stimulating, but i'm afraid i have nothing more to add other than hubris concerning myself being more "cult" than phil freeman. rage on, you guys.

ww

Man, Dan W. takes a lot of shit on this thread. Accused of know-it-allism, bandwidth hoggery, sarcasm, cynicism, ignorance, redundancy, thin skin, hostility, unwillingness to practice, etc., etc. etc.

But, as I've often said, you pan something, you take shit. Fans hate that.

So, just admit it, Dan. Dixon isn't just Schoenberg, he's greater than Schonberg. After all, it wasn't Dixon who wrote all that terrible late 12-tone stuff (like the piano con. and the Variations) that you've already demonstrated to be puke! Besides, why would Taylor and Dixon have played that concert in the first place if it wasn't superb?! They were the musicians, no? Jeez.

;>}

Where can I find out what Dan thinks is wrong with the Schonberg piano concerto? I like it, especially when Uchida plays it with Boulez? Where can I find Walter's take on the two works in question, apart from the fact that they're puke? Wish I could puke like that!

>those panel guys should have followed their gut instincts: that yakuza record sure as hell needed "names" on it to get anybody to like it.

I should have stuck in a paragraph break there, or otherwise been more clear. Everybody loathed the Yakuza disc, flat out (I dig 'em, and have a great CD-R of Bruce Lamont guesting with Borbetomagus I hope to release someday). It was the Taylor/Dixon/Oxley disc, the subject of this thread, that the esteemed panel of critics and attendees began backpedaling on as soon as they heard who was playing on it - basically as soon as they learned they were supposed to like it.

Which brings us to a new thread - how the hell are you "supposed" to like a recording based on "brand names" alone?
For instance, I dig Sun Ra's music but doesn't necessarily mean, I'll like every single recording he's ever put his name to.

Where can I find out what Dan thinks is wrong with the Schonberg piano concerto? I like it, especially when Uchida plays it with Boulez? Where can I find Walter's take on the two works in question, apart from the fact that they're puke? Wish I could puke like that!

I love them myself. I was paraphrasing Dan. Your (our) beef is with him, Marc. He should keep in mind that public disliking is simply not allowed. Anytime, anywhere.

I dig Sun Ra's music but doesn't necessarily mean, I'll like every single recording he's ever put his name to.

Well, if you don't, brace yourself. Got to adore every single one or people will yell at you and call you a pervert.

> Which brings us to a new thread - how the hell are you "supposed" to like a recording based on "brand names" alone?

Simple, really. The process goes like this..."Huh, Cecil Taylor's on this? I greatly admire Cecil Taylor - he is a musician of great cultural stature. Therefore, this thing, to which I had a very negative visceral reaction on first listen, must contain hidden depths. Thus, it must be me who is wrong. I will nod my head sagely to buy time while I come up with some justification for endorsing that which I formerly scorned."

It helps to have a beard to stroke while nodding sagely.

Marc: "In which pantheon would you not presume to rank Dixon? :) Composer? Performer? Teacher? Seems to me he fits the bill on all counts. Then it becomes just a question of how highly he's ranked. What factors do you use in your decision. Innovation? Clarity of intent and purpose? Is it as simple as personal like or dislike?"

No, I just find pantheons to be unhelpful in characterizing the music. For me it sets up an unnatural hierarchy that is antithetical to musical creativity and appreciation. So yes, I guess for me it is really just a matter of personal taste.

Haha, this IS fun.. I see Walt had an extra bowl of Froot Loops for breakfast and is RRREARIN' to go!
God knows which thread the Schoenberg scrap was on, but to recap I don't like any of the strict 12-tone pieces after 1923 very much, with the exception of Survivor from Warsaw and the String Trio. There a bits of the Variations for Orchestra that sound OK to me, but by and large I find the late stuff rhythmically stilted and harmonically straitjacketed compared to pieces like Glucklische Hand, Erwartung, 2nd Quartet etc etc. Old story for Bags hands! Actually Walt, if I had to choose between the Bill Dixon records I've mentioned above and any post 23 Schoenberg, BD WOULD win hands down! Thanks for the info on Steve Horenstein too Damon - would be great to hear some recent stuff of his. Are you in contact? And Phil, are you stroking that Hetfield while nodding sagely instead? I'm afraid I have nothing to protect my poor thin skin than an evil after-shave brew of cynicism and hostility, dripping with sarcasm and ignorance..!
Why can't we all talk about Ligeti instead?

if I had to choose between the Bill Dixon records I've mentioned above and any post 23 Schoenberg, BD WOULD win hands down!

OK, that's the last straw. I'm officially on Joe's side now.

You crazy kids! Anyway, Warsaw is definitely some ill shit! Am I the only one that likes Kol Nidre?
I wrote a piano piece based on one of Ligeti's nonsense madrigals--you know "When the rain comes down, when the rain comes tumbling down"--if anybody's not heard that, just put down what you're doing and find it!

I like to think I can hear Walt's tongue slapping against the inside of his cheek, but I'm not sure :)
Meanwhile, if it's any consolation, I'll trade my copy of Vade Mecum for Jakobsleiter.. NO only joking kids in fact I want to keep both. Anyway Walt if you're on "Joe's side" I look forward to your review of Blocks Of Consciousness with great interest :))

He should keep in mind that public disliking is simply not allowed. Anytime, anywhere. Well, if you don't, brace yourself. Got to adore every single one or people will yell at you and call you a pervert.

Walt, you sure are getting a lot of mileage out of this broken record. How about cueing up a different tune on the turntable? The old one has no beat to speak of & I can’t dance to it.

...has no beat to speak of & I can’t dance to it.

That may be because, like late Schoenberg, it's "rhythmically stilted."

my last will and testament:

please give me both bill dixon and arnold schoenberg on an even par, only sometimes though because i feel committed to listen to either guy only about twice a year not unlike going to the dentist or something. i can only handle pure, uncut genius so often.

leave the yakuza to phil "nu-metal-meister" freeman. i've heard that live tape of bruce and borbo and it's about as exciting as candy dulfer jamming endlessly on a dorian mode while a bunch of overfed, amplified bullfrogs croak wanly in the background. it may be better off as a cd-r release than an actual cd, if you know what i mean . . .

somebody please pepper my grave with copies of the togashi-yamashita duo live record and "montreux afterglow" by the yosuke yamashita trio please though, because i was too poor to buy them when i found copies in japan.

RIP, ww

News of your death seems to be greatly exaggerated, Weasel.

Considering that I follow Groucho's code that sez " I would never join any club that would have me as a member" I must also follow the code that sez " I will never start my own club." Therefore I have no side for you to be on Walto. You'll have to find your own reasons to pick on Danny Boy.

"No one should give in to limitations other than those which are due to the limits of his talent. No violinist would play, even occasionally, with the wrong intonation to please lower musical tastes, no tight-rope walker would take steps in the wrong direction only for pleasure or for popular appeal, no chess master would make moves everyone could anticipate just to be agreeable (and thus allow his opponent to win), no mathematician would invent something new in mathematics just to flatter the masses who do not possess the specific mathematical way of thinking, and in the same manner, no artist, no poet, no philosopher and no musician whose thinking occurs in the highest sphere would degenerate into vulgarity in order to comply with a slogan such as "Art for All." Because if it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art."

- Arnold Schoenberg, Style & Idea

Spaulding: What do you fellas get an hour?
Ravelli: For playing, we get-a ten dollars an hour.
Spaulding: I see. What do you get for not playing?
Ravelli: Twelve dollars an hour.
Spaulding: Well, clip me off a piece of that.
Ravelli: Now for rehearsing, we make special rate. That's-a fifteen dollars an hour...That's-a for rehearsing.
Spaulding: And what do you get for not rehearsing?
Ravelli: You couldn't afford it.

- Marx Bros, Animal Crackers

Time to close the thread, pepper Weasel's gravestone with stroked hetfield and move on to fight another day on pastures new. Cheers Joe. Glad you like Groucho.

"An now we'd like to play one of our own compositions, by Victor Herbert."

http://www.esse.ca/fr/article.php?no=47&article=8

good night

So, I happened to catch Mr. Dixon with George Lewis last evening at the Vision Fest and haveta say, he sounded just fine. A real nice set all around, Lewis on 'bone and laptop, Dixon playing both echo-enhanced and not. They tended to stay in a linear, quasi-drone mode, generally soft but freely flowing into both higher and (very) low registers. They meshed extremely well, neither stepping on the other's toes. Lewis' tone is as amazing as ever and Dixon's compliment was quite juicy.

Now, they did perform while screening possibly the worst video I've ever--ever--seen (as it largely revolved around Dixon's paintings, I'm assuming him to be the culprit) but that was easily remedied by the slightest downward movement of the eyelids.

He's playing Guelph this September with Joelle Leandre incidentally (a first encounter I believe).

It is truly remarkable how much time has been spent in this strand commenting on Bill's music.

Years ago, I remember running into Bill with a copy of Miles' latest LP just after Miles returned to playing. He asked me what I thought of it. As I had not yet heard it, I quoted the critical response of the moment, which, in some ways, is not dissimilar from some of what has been shared here. Bill's response was "Miles has made so much remarkable music that at this point in his life he could shit on a piece of vinyl and it would be okay."

The important thing to understand is the role of the critic and of criticism in the life of the music. When well executed this a community function and the commentary/response adds to the life of the music and is rooted in layered tradition.

It would be interesting to read some commentary that manages not to personalize the professional or to trivialize the fundamental character of the individual experience. Not to mention the commentary that has more to do with self exhibition than the essential act of witness.

Bill's work is singular: definitive, transformative (for those able to receive) and deeply personal.

And, for those lucky enough to have experienced it, Bill is very good at sharing what he knows.

Sincerely,

Stephen Haynes
Wethersfield, CT

"Years ago, I remember running into Bill with a copy of Miles' latest LP just after Miles returned to playing. He asked me what I thought of it. As I had not yet heard it, I quoted the critical response of the moment, which, in some ways, is not dissimilar from some of what has been shared here. Bill's response was "Miles has made so much remarkable music that at this point in his life he could shit on a piece of vinyl and it would be okay.""

I am with you to a point here, but Miles did in fact make some shitty records, IMO, BIll hasn't.
The Recording in question is an amazing trio improvisation with Cecil Taylor and Tony Oxely - hardly covers of Cindy Lauper songs or "Bop-be".....
For those who may not know: Mr. Haynes appears on the fantastic BIll Dixon lps "Live in Italy" vol 1 & 2.

"The important thing to understand is the role of the critic and of criticism in the life of the music...this a community function and the commentary/response adds to the life of the music and is rooted in layered tradition.It would be interesting to read some commentary that manages not to personalize the professional or to trivialize the fundamental character of the individual experience. Not to mention the commentary that has more to do with self exhibition than the essential act of witness."

Stephen, can you be more specific about what precisely you mean, and how exactly we might decide what meets your criteria, and some examples which meet those criteria?

This would seem an impossibilty given the differences of opinion about the piece/s of music under discussion; a good example would be the Cecil Taylor/Bill Dixon/Tony Oxley album.

Best Wishes

Hm, that story about Dixon makes me think of the novelist Mary Butts. She broke with Aleister Crowley when he tried to make her eat a turd on a plate, telling her that it was the body of Christ.

regarding bill dixon's recordsi can only add my two cents worth; hearing Intents and Purposes was a revelation and i wish it were available on cd. Vade Mecum also "blew me away" and i am still looking for Vol. 2.The tracks on the old Savoy label record that dixon shared with Shepp were good also. Berlin Abbozzi was disapointing, the first track was quite good but the rest seemed, well, less than satisfying to me, pedestrian use of echoplex, more sputtering than articulation, perhaps a less than stellar session; but, an artist that merits my continued listening and respect.

I think you're right on the button with re 'Berlin Abbozzi', Walt.

The collected press attempted a parley, "You seem to be saying that we have to like your work, no matter what," exclaimed one of the sages present. Bill roared back, "No, I am saying that you should understand what my work is about before you decide whether you like it, and your liking it has nothing to do with it, your public wants to know THAT I have done it. I do not know anyone who does a work that they want someone to like overtly, that’s not why I do what I do. Why do I do music, that’s what they want to know about. It isn’t that you should endorse what I do, but you should try to inform your readership what it is that I do."

http://www.esse.ca/fr/article.php?no=47&article=8

Gary,

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

No comments on bringing together the rich range of opinion that is Bagatellen.

"Stephen, can you be more specific about what precisely you mean, and how exactly we might decide what meets your criteria, and some examples which meet those criteria?"

Simply put, avoid the subjective (e.g., see sjz at June 24, 2006 04:51 PM posting above). Contribute something vital and substantive to the dialogue.

And, one supposes, after all is said and done, have a bit of fun, yes?

-Stephen Haynes

I was trying to find a place for this on here, so since he is one of the younger trumpet players influenced by Mr. DIxon I thought I would post Mazen Kerbaj's War Blog here:
http://mazenkerblog.blogspot.com
his real site is here:
http://www.kerbaj.com/
Check out the mp3s he is a beautiful player....

Damon,

Since we are posting blogs, add mine to your list: http://stephenhaynes.blogspot.com/